Tram fiasco firm may build new line
A FIRM which was one of the main contractors for the botched Edinburgh tram project may be in the frame to carry out the £165million extension to the network, an inquiry has heard.
The scheme was initially expected to cost £375million, with construction beginning in 2007 and expected to be completed by 2011.
But the project quickly became mired in delays and pricing feuds, leading to the cancellation of a planned section of track from York Place to Newhaven.
In September, City of Edinburgh Council voted to move forward with plans to finish the three-mile section at an expected cost of £165million.
Yesterday at the Edinburgh Tram Inquiry it was disclosed that German firm Siemens may be in line to carry out the work.
Siemens was partnered with Bilfinger Berger to complete infrastructure construction for the original project, which was finally finished in 2014 at a cost of £1billion.
The companies caused delays in 2009 when they demanded up to £80million extra for work.
It seems the council may be compelled to work with Siemens again as the firm owns equipment intended to be used on the line which has been held in warehouses since the cancellation.
When it approved plans in September, the council appeared to tout the fact that ‘much of the equipment for the extension has already been acquired’ as a positive.
But yesterday inquiry junior counsel Ross McClelland implied that may mean Siemens is at an advantage when it comes to bidding for the extension.
In evidence Axel Eickhorn, who was Siemens commercial project manager on the original scheme, was asked by Mr McClelland whether or not the council would have to buy the remaining materials and equipment for the extension from his firm.
Mr Eickhorn said there was ‘no must’ but added: ‘I think from my point of view it would make sense to continue with Siemens because it is a case of extending the systems we have installed there.’
Pressing his point Mr McClelland went on to ask: ‘If the council holds materials and equipment supplied by Siemens, whatever portion it is, from a line from York Place to Newhaven, is it straightforward for another supplier to supply materials that will integrate with that material?’
Refusing to answer directly Mr Eickhorn said: ‘It depends on the nature of the material.’
Mr McClelland then asked if Siemens held ‘a commercial advantage over other suppliers when it comes to supplying the rest of the equipment needed.’
Siemens’ lawyers objected to the line of questioning, with a representative saying the inquiry was not intended to investigate the Newhaven extension.
But inquiry chairman Lord Hardie allowed it to go ahead, saying it would be ‘of some relevance to the consequences’.
Mr Eickhorn then claimed it did not ‘necessarily’ give them an advantage.
Asked by Mr McClelland if it would be easier for Siemens to provide the ‘missing bits’ than another supplier Mr Eickhorn refused to answer. He said: ‘I cannot comment on items put in storage because I am not aware of the condition in which they are.’
The inquiry continues.